puntos: Ni acuerdo ni desacuerdo 3 4 puntos: Acuerdo

In Ghana, the major forum for parents’ participation in school governance is the School Management Committee (SMC). In this section, I focus on establishing the forms of parental involvement in the SMC and how and why they are involved. The areas discussed include SMC membership and functions, parental involvement in school finance specifically the management of capitation grants, but also supervision of school fees/levies and accounts and in the monitoring of teachers.

6.1i Membership and Functions

The rationale for instituting SMCs was to engage qualified community members with technical wherewithal to support a school’s internal administrators (Mankoe, 2002). In Ghana, in line with the GES, PTA/SMC (2001) policy, membership of a SMC is made up of the head teacher; a representative of the Metropolitan/Municipal/District Assembly; chairperson of the Unit Committee; a representative of the Education Unit; a representative of the PTA (selected at a general meeting through voting); a representative of the village chief; two members of the teaching staff; and two co-opted members of the community who might be parents.

In theory, the appointment of individuals to the SMC should be devoid of any form of discrimination: a person’s political leaning, religious background, tribe, or gender should not be considered in their appointment to the SMC. Membership should be based solely on merit (Mankoe, 2002). It emerged at the Community Focus Group Discussion (FGD) that SMC membership in School 1 was all male-dominated: most were activists of political party and/or influential people (e.g. those who had the greater authority to mobilise villagers for communal labour), but had little knowledge or experience in school management. The highest educational attainment of the SMC members at School 1 was Middle School Leaving Certificate. The inference from the

composition of the SMCs is that rather than provide a platform for parental participation, it creates room for a few, well-connected community members to assume responsibility for school management (Kingdon et al., 2014; Dunne et al., 2007). As one focus group discussion participant (FGD) puts it:

Appointment of people to serve on SMC largely recognises people in the community who are well-to-do and influential, leaving out the poor. Yes, affluent people offer support, especially with financial assistance; but they hardly attend meetings because of their business schedules. I have also noticed that only a few appointees do have their children in the school [Community FGD, School 1 Participant].

As discussed in the literature review, the local elite and relatively better educated community members tend to take on the role of brokers of decision-making and, through their actions, close up the space for representation and participation in the affairs of the school by a more inclusive group of community members (Kingdon et al., 2014). In this sense, it would appear that the policy expectations for greater representation and involvement in school by parents was not being realised. In the case of School 2 community, the data revealed that most of the SMC members tended to be more experienced and knowledgeable in management and education matters. The highest educational attainment was first degree in Basic Education. It was agreed at the focus group discussions (FGDs), however, that in both schools, the position of SMC chairperson was restricted to a parent which is contrary to the stipulations in the PTA/SMC manuals.

Most participants in the focus group discussion in School 1 raised concerns about how some community members come to serve on the SMC and the extent to which due process was observed in their appointments:

I don’t know how members are appointed to serve on the SMC. I feel the membership needs to be reviewed. If you listen to the type of contributions made by some members, you begin to wonder the criteria for their appointment – I strongly suspect that some of them are favourites of the ruling political party which makes the appointment anyway [Community FGD, School 1 Participant].

The GES Manuals provide that the tenure of office for an executive member of the SMC shall be three years though a member shall be eligible for re-election to another additional three-year term only or one year in the case of a chairperson. As an SMC member commented:

The school administration is very strict on tenure of office for members including the executive position and would ensure that members stick to the stipulated number of years demanded by the SMC/PTA manuals regardless of one’s personal contact or relations with management [Community FCD, School 2 Participant]

The focus group discussions also threw up questions about the length of years in relation to appointments to SMCs, some SMC members at School 1 community identified as being in office far longer than their mandated tenure of office. As one participant stated:

Our SMC chairman has served for 12 years, contrary to what we were made to understand from the beginning. Is he the only person with ideas to lead the committee? All efforts to get this anomaly rectified have proved futile as he has the full backing of the head teacher [Community FGD, School 1 Participant].

This situation in which a head teacher at School 1 insisted on his favourite as chairperson even after completing his/her mandatory term of office compromises accountability and transparency. However, excellent the chairperson’s performance, the rule must be upheld and enforced. This raises questions about people’s suitability for the roles assigned them.

A critical determinant for appointment to an SMC is the issue of relevant skills, knowledge and expertise because of their combined efforts on school policy, administration, finance and development (Mankoe, 2002; MOESS, 2005). Yet, these criteria have been described as barriers to the democratic process because the majority of parents in rural communities are unlikely to contribute on account of their obvious lack of these skills (Adam, 2005). As one of the head teachers put it:

Getting the right calibre of members to serve on the SMC has been a major source of worry to us as head teachers. Our work as heads are often impeded by a number of appointees who may be financially okay but may lack the requisite educational backgrounds. Most of them lack the skills and knowledge to make meaningful contributions at meetings [Teacher FGD, School 2 Participant].

The quote above indicates that the ability of the SMC to participate in school management varies. It suggests that most SMC members in rural communities such as this one lack the capacity or skills to effectively participate in school management. Another head teacher corroborated the limited capacity and skills of many of the SMC members saying that:

The low educational attainment of some SMC members is a big blow to the governance system. Most of them rarely contribute to preparation of SPIP and budgets. They are often traders, farmers and fishermen with very low education but who find themselves as political appointees. Sometimes, the school is expected to co-opt other members to assist for a fee. More or less like consultants all because of low educational background of most substantive members. For these, the major responsibility is checking teachers’ lateness and attendance to school. Apart from the chairperson and a few others who meet the minimum requirement, the rest are mere followers [Teacher FGD, School 1 Participant].

A lack of suitable persons negatively affect parental involvement in formal school governance with ramifications for both school and community since, in some instances, head teachers relied on ‘others’ who perform some duties for a fee. It is clear that in

the study schools, membership of the SMCs left much to be desired. The question that then remains unanswered is where to apportion blame: the idiosyncrasies’ of the head teacher or the environment.

6.1ii Training for SMC Members

The importance of training in school management for SMC members in poor rural communities like this one stems from issues such as lack of knowledge and skills (Watt, 2001; Mankoe, 2002; Adam, 2005). During the focus group discussions, most SMC participants were positive about the training organised for them but also pointed some shortcomings. For example, one SMC member indicated:

One month after my appointment, I received a letter from the Municipal Director of Education (MDE) instructing the head teacher to organise an orientation for the newly appointed members. The head teacher took us (new SMC members) through the GES SMC manuals on SMC/ PTA. Unfortunately, we were not given copies of the manuals but were asked to come to the office any time we are in doubt about our roles and functions as SMC members[Community FGD, School 2 Participant].

A SMC member expected, as a matter of right, to be issued with his/her own copy of the manual. One SMC member commented:

At the orientation sessions, we were told to visit the school often to check teachers’ lateness and absenteeism. We were also told to see the head teacher when in doubt of anything in connection with our functions as outlined in SMC/PTA manuals. Surprisingly, we were not given copies of the manuals [Community FGD, School 1 Participant]

The above quote makes it clear that the inability of the head teachers to provide orientation training for newly appointed SMC members is due to a lack of resources. This explains the lack of support to the SMC’s role in school governance.

A major responsibility of the SMC members outlined was the need to check teachers’ lateness and absenteeism. One SMC member described her understanding of the role thus:

We (new SMC members) were made to understand that the school belongs to us and that the school management or governance was therefore, in our hands and so, we should regularly visit the school to check on the teachers and the pupils as well. We must report teachers’ absenteeism, lateness, drunkenness and other immoral behaviours to the head of the school, and then to the circuit supervisor, who, in turn, would take it up with those concerned [CommunityFGD, School 2 Participant].

Another SMC member noted:

We were told to visit the school often to check teachers’ lateness and absenteeism. We were also told to see the head teacher when in doubt of anything in connection with our functions as outlined in SMC/PTA manuals [Community FGD, School 1 Participant]

The study shows that most SMC members in both schools had limited knowledge of their responsibilities and they tended to focus on teachers’ absenteeism or lateness. However, as spelt out in the GES manual, other roles such as financial and property management, as well as conflict resolution were expected of SMC members and these should be addressed in the orientation sessions.

As indicated in the literature review, the capacity of rural communities to provide this sort of supports (refresher courses. seminars and in-service training) is challenged (Watt, 2001; Adam, 2005). One major challenge is that poor communities with low levels of education attainment often lack the time, money, confidence, skills and lack of cooperation of the school staff (Watt, 2001; Adam, 2005; Donkor, 2010). When asked why seminars, in-service training, orientation and refresher courses were not organised

for SMC members to enable them upgrade their skills and knowledge in school governance, one head teacher noted:

We are not able to organise seminars or in-service training for SMC members in this rural community due to a lack of money [Teacher, FGD, School 2]

Another head teacher added:

Most of the SMC members in this rural community have not had in-service training or seminars which could have fully enhanced their capacity to perform due to resource constraints [Teacher FGD, School 1]

The head teachers in the above quotes seem to be saying that the capacity of SMC members in rural communities to access in-service training and seminars stem from lack of money and/or resource constraints.

6.1iii The SMC and Parental Involvement in School Finance

A principal function of the SMC as discussed in the study schools was its role in financial management. The community focus group discussions highlighted the key role of the SMC in financial management through the capitation grant scheme and it also had oversight responsibility in the supervision of school fees/levies and accounts. These issues are discussed in the following sections:

6.1 iv The Administration of the Capitation Grant

This section is about the process involved in administration of the capitation grant and who is involved and what follows is about what SMC members and teachers think of it and their extent of involvement.

The capitation grant is based on a School Performance Improvement Plan (SPIP) (GES Guidelines for Distribution and Utilisation of Capitation Grants, 2005). The procedure for computing the plan begins with input from the teachers and then their head teacher, who, upon completion, has to discuss with the chairperson of SMC for approval (GES Guidelines for Capitation Grants, 2005, ibid). The approved SPIP is then sent to the Municipal Education Office for onward submission to the Ministry of Education (MOE) through the Ministry of Finance for final release of the funds. Upon release of the capitation grant to the district, the funds are finally deposited in the school account (GES Guidelines, ibid).

One reason why SMC members are not fully involved in the administration of the capitation grant is because they do not have the necessary technical know-how in its accounting. The drawing up, verification and authorisation of SPIP are technical matters that require people with the necessary expertise to thoroughly scrutinise the accounts. Unfortunately, most SMC members do not possess the requisite knowledge or skills in accounting and therefore left everything to the head teacher and his or her staff. As one SMC chairperson confirmed: “The examination of the SPIP (a major segment of the capitation grant) is very technical and complicated. I often find myself at the wrong place, but I cannot take the school to ransom and reject it even though it is prepared by the school administrators.”

The above quote shows that SMC members lacked knowledge in the accounting of SPIP which made them rely on school administrators. This might compromise accountability issues in school governance.

Focus group discussions revealed that there is no reason to justify rushing the examination of capitation grant. It also revealed some mistrust between those involved. As one SMC member put it:

I disagree with the contention that the undue delay in the release of capitation grant prevents a thorough examination of the SPIP and budgets. What prevents the SMC in bringing copies of SPIP and budget to a general meeting so that we can all make inputs?

In many cases, community members like the sample used in the current study, lacked skills and experience needed in drawing up of annual plans and budgets. Invariably, in such instances the task is left in the hands of head teachers and officials of Metropolitan/ Municipal/ District Directorates (MMDs). The practice sacrifices accountability and transparency because the MMDs are intended to play the role of impartial arbiters in such matters (GES, 2001). Such situations can give rise to a suspicion of malpractice even if this is not the case, as suggested by one SMC member. One respondent with a contact in the GES office thought that figures in the school SPIP and budgets were sometimes adjusted. SMC members in many cases are therefore nominally involved, by way of making their inputs in the local governance of the programme. This finding corroborates the assertion by Dunne et al., (2007) that core education decisions are not generally decentralised in a way that encourages broader local community participation in decision-making.

SMC members’ and Teachers’ Perspectives on Capitation Grant

During the focus group discussions, participants from both schools hailed the introduction of the capitation grant claiming that though there are still costs as it does not cover everything, it is cheaper:

Before the introduction of capitation grant, I had lost interest in the affairs of the school and so when they called meetings I seldom attended. But now that the

burden of paying fees has been lifted off my shoulders, I take keen interest in the affairs of the school [Community FGD, School 2 Participant].

Another SMC member added:

The introduction of capitation grant has in a way reduced my financial burden as regard payment of tuition fees though there are other levies to be paid. I now feel more predisposed engaging in school activities. My interest in school activities is now re-kindled [Community FGD, School 1 Participant].

In other words, most parents welcome the capitation grant even though it does not give them a complete financial ‘reprieve’ as they still need to pay other levies as PTA members.

On their part, however, most teacher participants expressed misgivings about the capitation grant saying it had brought hardships in school management because it was woefully inadequate and often released too late. The introduction of capitation grant had meant head teachers, for example must defend each and every expenditure item to the SMC. In addition, teachers complained that the capitation grant has led to most parents into thinking that everything associated with their children’s education was free, catered for by the grant funds:

A time will come there will not be any school project like classroom block, library etc because anytime you mention it SMC members ask what are we doing with our capitation grants. It appears that these days the capitation must cater for everything in the school, except our salaries [Teacher FGD, School 2 Participant].

As one head teacher remarked:

Compared to the past, the collection of school fees and levies is not easy these days. Most parents feel they have no financial obligations because of the capitation grants. It’s not surprising that these days we are unable to

undertake many developmental projects as we did prior to the advent of the grant [Teacher FGD, School 1 Participant].

Teachers also reported that following the introduction of the capitation grant, some parents including SMC members, fail to provide books, uniforms and other basic materials to support their children. It can be inferred from the foregoing that, teachers expressed their disillusionment with executing projects since the inception of the capitation grant. This is saying that even those SMC members involved in the administration do not understand what is included and what is not.

In the focus group discussions, it became apparent that SMC members desired for more education on the utilisation of the capitation grant in order that they could make meaningful contributions to its management. As one SMC member noted:

I need to be better informed about the capitation grant so as to be better involved in its management. For now, though I’m a member of the SMC, my knowledge in which school items are catered for by the capitation grant and